The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

[VonKleist]

Further on where exactly in the 'plane Satam al-Suqami was when Flight 11 impacted, Ramzi Binalshibh described the intended plan of action to Al-Jazeera journalist Yosri Fouda:

Each Team had three wings: a pilot sitting in business class, two members sitting as close as possible to the cockpit door to break in at a certain point in time, and two at the back to keep the passengers at bay. . . .. .
The break-in team would seize the earliest opportunity to rush into the cockpit and get rid of everyone inside, whereas the protection team would deal with passengers and security men - slaughtering them if necessary , and moving all passengers to the back. Meanwhile, the pilot would be taking his place inside the cockpit, steering the aeroplane.

- Masterminds of Terror, Fouda and Fielding 2003

From the seating plan for flight 11, it's clear that al-Suqami was part of the 'crowd control' team along with Abdul Aziz Al-Omari, and therefore extremely unlikely to have been in the cockpit and much more likely to have been towards the rear of the 'plane.

 

[atavisms]

I would love for someone to explain how the buildings coming down fairly straight is evidence of anything?

It is evidence the supports (which in a skyscraper are extremely robust) are no longer present. To accomplish the motion seen in the collapse of WTC7 all of the perimeter columns had to be severed simultaneously. The same had obviously happened to the center core columns a few seconds earlier as we can tell by the disappearance of the penthouse.

Fire simply cannot make a building come down that way. NISt wants us to believe the fantasy of a 'new phenomenon' 'thermal expansion on column 79.' Look at how the building was constructed, -what happened to all those other connections?
Even if you did have a local failure at column 79 (I forget the floor.. its absurd) how could that explain the timing (and implications of freefalll of the upper right corner of the perimeter..?? The loss of one column (in an area which the video evidence shows the fires had died down by the time it came down at 5:20p.) could not possibly account for the behavior of the building. How can we know this for sure? By knowing it's never happened before. By NIST's behavior...and the fact they cannot even get a computer to repeat it! ..And refuse (due to 'public safety concerns) to share their data..
oh its just absurd. Anyone who looks at it will realize that.

If one must ask: "what difference does it make if skyscrapers blow up and implode supposedly, for the first time in history, from 'office fires' and these attacks are used to rush off to war,,,investigations that were put off, evidence ignored and so on...then this is not a topic for them.
As sad as it may be to come to terms with.. the facts speak for themselves. If you dont find the FEMA BPAT App C troubling, I can't help that..-there's all kinds of people in the world. (added to the long list of impossible features and anomalies -Like exploding and free-falling skyscrapers,,,and what remained. Then so be it. Most people find it very disturbing because it is so upsetting to come to realize such an insane thing could be true..
-

A steel skyscraper is coming down that way regardless of what initiates the collapse.

right,,, because it has happened so many times before. Solid and supported (much less highly redundant) structures do not fall through themselves.
We have examples of smaller buildings toppling over from earthquakes...but nothing like what hap'd on 9-11. Like what remained. Like how the sites weren't properly investigated or..preserved- and so on..

Fire has never caused a steel framed skyscraper to 'collapse' -ever.
(actually-the Towers did not "collapse," they were blown to bits! WTC7 collapsed in a manner consistent with an implosion. (who could argue that?
Anyway...NONE had any business doing so, much less in the manner they did. It is obvious to anyone who looks, that explosives were involved..)

There are many examples of much larger and longer lasting fires in steel frame skyscrapers. Much less in the crazy ways that 1&2 were blown up...and wtc7 imploded,, like no one would notice, or figure it out why w/the US population so vegged out and the plan so complex, -add the anthrax attack to members of Congress and the media. (Anthrax that came from where? NIST and Nano-thermites... READ Ryan's
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

 

[DGM]

It is evidence the supports (which in a skyscraper are extremely robust) are no longer present.

It's sentences like this that prove you have no clue what you're actually talking about. You're only repeating what your handlers have told you to say.

How much (in engineering terms) is "robust"? Are all "skyscrapers" the same? How should they have fallen and why?

 

[NoahFence]

Most people see WTC7 coming down and say, 'yeah that looks like an implosion. How could fires cause a building to fall symmetrically at such a rapid rate?

You're wrong.

MOST people see WTC 7 coming down and say "so what".

 

[atavisms]

It couldn't alone, It takes gravity, time, combined with the design of the building.

Why would you try to deceive like this? No one ever said fire alone did this (except "truthers") Thanks for playing.

The Towers stood for 56 & 102 minutes!
And look what happened to them.. NIST says not from the plane impacts but because of the intensity of the fires and their absurd 'pile driver theory' -that completely ignores the laws of physics and conflicts with observation. (which shows and explosive fountain of debris) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JnZbYXcbqw

WTC7 speaks for itself/ Does this look like the towering inferno?
http://www.youtube.com/user/Xenomorph911WTC#p/u/45/nqbUkThGlCo
(listen for the low level 'boom' heard at the start of the tape) because there have been real towering infernos. Much larger and longer lasting fires.. none ever imploded in a manner consistent with demolition.

Thank you for playing.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Most people see WTC7 coming down and say, 'yeah that looks like an implosion. How could fires cause a building to fall symmetrically at such a rapid rate?

A bare assertion of an argumentum ad populum. I believe that's a 2x combo modifier. Even if it were true that "most people" think what you claim they think, so what? What does that prove? That something nefarious was at work, or that building collapses aren't necessarily something that laymen can easily comprehend using only their eyeballs and a lack of education and experience on the subject?

 

[LSSBB]

…

Fire simply cannot make a building come down that way.

Yes it can. Ask a structural engineer who is well versed in tall steel structures. Column 79 was inadequately counter-reinforced to avoid being deformed from the expansion of the floor.

Where is your evidence of explosives and detonators? Where is the distintive high decibel sound of explosives? Where is sworn testimony of witnesses, confessions of perpetrators, video and photography of explosives, paper trail of purchases and planning, fingerprints, DNA, anything but your non-expert conjectures and opinion? The burden of proof is on you if you want to prove your claim. 10 years and nothing to show?

 

[LSSBB]

The Towers stood for 56 & 102 minutes!
And look what happened to them.. NIST says not from the plane impacts but because of the intensity of the fires and their absurd 'pile driver theory' -that completely ignores the laws of physics and conflicts with observation. (which shows and explosive fountain of debris) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JnZbYXcbqw

WTC7 speaks for itself/ Does this look like the towering inferno?
http://www.youtube.com/user/Xenomorph911WTC#p/u/45/nqbUkThGlCo
(listen for the low level 'boom' heard at the start of the tape) because there have been real towering infernos. Much larger and longer lasting fires.. none ever imploded in a manner consistent with demolition.

Thank you for playing.

"It never happened before" is never proof of anything.

 

[atavisms]

You're wrong.
MOST people see WTC 7 coming down and say "so what".

really? Even though the only time such features have ever been seen in such a building were during planned demolition implosions? and yet here it involved the slaughter of nearly 3000 of our fellow citizens and the rush off to two wars? Oh OK!! If you say so..

If 'so what?' is your response to the implications that these buildings were brought down with explosives...then that's your own indifferent self-absorbed ignorance and apathy that I'm glad to say has absolutely nothing to do with what most the rest of us call 'reality.'

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You're wrong.

MOST people see WTC 7 coming down and say "so what".

Not true, most say "building what?" followed by "was anyone killed?" followed by "no?" followed by "so who cares?" followed by "you must be nuts to think that!"
followed by "you need to get laid dude!"

 

[beachnut]

The Towers stood for 56 & 102 minutes!
And look what happened to them.. NIST says not from the plane impacts but because of the intensity of the fires and their absurd 'pile driver theory' -that completely ignores the laws of physics and conflicts with observation. (which shows and explosive fountain of debris) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JnZbYXcbqw

WTC7 speaks for itself/ Does this look like the towering inferno?
http://www.youtube.com/user/Xenomorph911WTC#p/u/45/nqbUkThGlCo
(listen for the low level 'boom' heard at the start of the tape) because there have been real towering infernos. Much larger and longer lasting fires.. none ever imploded in a manner consistent with demolition.

Thank you for playing.

You don't do physics. Explain exactly with math and physics what ignores the laws of physics on 911. You can't which makes your claims moronic delusions based on ignorance. You can't do the math to prove your claim, you are not an engineer.

WTC7 was burning during the day; if at night, you would not be under-impressed by the fire! Did not see you run into this! You are spreading lies due to ignorance, and you do it poorly.

Towering Inferno, WTC7, you failed.
Fire, WTC7, not fought, no water! You lost this argument due to lack of knowledge and zero research.

WTC7 fires were not fought, so you have never seen larger and longer lasting fires; you have no seen anything that makes you qualified to do engineering and fire science. You have no knowledge to make a comment.

Burning a pile of leaves in daylight, not impressive; burning a pile of leaves at night, very impressive. You don't understand intensity of light, physics, math, and more. You have no common knowledge of the physical world, you are gullible.

You repeat lies made up by failed people who can't figure out 911, and you do nothing to improve your position. What did ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/MSNBC say when you broke your big story? What will you do with your nonsense? Nothing

 

[NoahFence]

The Towers stood for 56 & 102 minutes!
And look what happened to them.. NIST says not from the plane impacts but because of the intensity of the fires and their absurd 'pile driver theory' -that completely ignores the laws of physics and conflicts with observation. (which shows and explosive fountain of debris) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JnZbYXcbqw

WTC7 speaks for itself/ Does this look like the towering inferno?
http://www.youtube.com/user/Xenomorph911WTC#p/u/45/nqbUkThGlCo
(listen for the low level 'boom' heard at the start of the tape) because there have been real towering infernos. Much larger and longer lasting fires.. none ever imploded in a manner consistent with demolition.

Thank you for playing.

You mean the tiny little almost imperceptable rumble that is indicative of the interior of the building collapsing?

Ok, heard it. Now what.


Listen kiddo - all these retarded theories have been blown out of the water like 6 years ago.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

There are many examples of much larger and longer lasting fires in steel frame skyscrapers.

Really? please show these "many" examples........(I know about the Windsor tower and the Meridian building, but "many" usually means more than two and those two have long ago been explained to this engineers satisfaction)

 

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by NoahFence
You're wrong.
MOST people see WTC 7 coming down and say "so what".

really? Even though the only time such features have ever been seen in such a building were during planned demolition implosions? and yet here it involved the slaughter of nearly 3000 of our fellow citizens and the rush off to two wars? Oh OK!! If you say so..

If 'so what?' is your response to the implications that these buildings were brought down with explosives...then that's your own indifferent self-absorbed ignorance and apathy that I'm glad to say has absolutely nothing to do with what most the rest of us call 'reality.'

Yes, really. MOST people saw the Pentagon struck by a plane, the two towers struck by planes and saw them collapse, knew a plane crashed in Shanksville, then, while watching the news later in the day saw WTC 7 collapse and said "SO WHAT".


Why aren't you commenting on the myriad of things that were MISSING from your so-called demolition? The only thing similar between WTC 7 and a legit controlled demo is the fact that they were standing and now they're not.

That's it.

 

[Sabretooth]

really? Even though the only time such features have ever been seen in such a building were during planned demolition implosions?

How, exactly, do you "implode" a building with "explosives"?

 

[DGM]

The Towers stood for 56 & 102 minutes!
And look what happened to them.. NIST says not from the plane impacts but because of the intensity of the fires and their absurd 'pile driver theory' -that completely ignores the laws of physics and conflicts with observation. (which shows and explosive fountain of debris) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JnZbYXcbqw

WTC7 speaks for itself/ Does this look like the towering inferno?
http://www.youtube.com/user/Xenomorph911WTC#p/u/45/nqbUkThGlCo
(listen for the low level 'boom' heard at the start of the tape) because there have been real towering infernos. Much larger and longer lasting fires.. none ever imploded in a manner consistent with demolition.

Thank you for playing.

Explain what they got wrong. Don't worry about using big words and math. I'll understand. You can explain how NIST "violated the laws of physics" too. Don't be afraid to get technical, I don't think you'll lose me.

When can I expect you to begin?


Anyone want to bet he posts a YouTube video as his answer (he is a "free thinker")?

 

[Travis]

It is evidence the supports (which in a skyscraper are extremely robust) are no longer present. To accomplish the motion seen in the collapse of WTC7 all of the perimeter columns had to be severed simultaneously. The same had obviously happened to the center core columns a few seconds earlier as we can tell by the disappearance of the penthouse.

This is absolutely not correct. It will happen regardless of what initiates a collapse.

Fire simply cannot make a building come down that way.

Why not? All known understanding of structural engineering and physics says that it most certainly cannot come down in any other way.

NISt wants us to believe the fantasy of a 'new phenomenon' 'thermal expansion on column 79.'

You think that thermal expansion is a new phenomenon? Have you ever even accidentally encountered reality? Thermal expansion is something we've been observing for thousands of years.

Look at how the building was constructed, -what happened to all those other connections?

Typical cascade failure. That's what.

Even if you did have a local failure at column 79 (I forget the floor.. its absurd) how could that explain the timing (and implications of freefalll of the upper right corner of the perimeter..?? The loss of one column (in an area which the video evidence shows the fires had died down by the time it came down at 5:20p.) could not possibly account for the behavior of the building.

Nothing but unsupported speculation.

How can we know this for sure? By knowing it's never happened before.

Because all those other steel skyscrapers with five hour long unfought fires fared so well.

By NIST's behavior...and the fact they cannot even get a computer to repeat it! ..And refuse (due to 'public safety concerns) to share their data..
oh its just absurd. Anyone who looks at it will realize that.

No, you seem to be one of the very few who even thinks this.

If one must ask: "what difference does it make if skyscrapers blow up and implode supposedly, for the first time in history, from 'office fires' and these attacks are used to rush off to war,,,investigations that were put off, evidence ignored and so on...then this is not a topic for them.
As sad as it may be to come to terms with.. the facts speak for themselves. If you dont find the FEMA BPAT App C troubling, I can't help that..-there's all kinds of people in the world. (added to the long list of impossible features and anomalies -Like exploding and free-falling skyscrapers,,,and what remained. Then so be it. Most people find it very disturbing because it is so upsetting to come to realize such an insane thing could be true..

I asked for some proof that a building can only come straight down from an implosion. You are failing big time to provide any.

right,,, because it has happened so many times before.

That's the point. No fire like this had ever, ever, ever occurred in a skyscraper before. Got that?

Solid and supported (much less highly redundant) structures do not fall through themselves.

You think the buildings were solid? Again reality really should be consulted.

We have examples of smaller buildings toppling over from earthquakes...but nothing like what hap'd on 9-11.

Here's the thing, big buildings and small buildings react in completely different ways. So do concrete and steel ones. That's why they have entirely different structural design.

Like what remained. Like how the sites weren't properly investigated or..preserved- and so on..

Preserved? Are you out of your frigging mind? There was a rescue operation to do.

Fire has never caused a steel framed skyscraper to 'collapse' -ever.

That's because this was the first time a steel skyscraper had a huge fire that the fire fighters were not even attempting to extinguish.

There are many examples of much larger and longer lasting fires in steel frame skyscrapers.

None of them were bigger and all the others had water and fire fighting efforts.

 

[twinstead]

Never before in history have two 110 story and one 47 story building been demolished with CD all in one day and in secret.

Therefore, it didn't happen.

Right, atavisms?

 

[beachnut]

... a 'new phenomenon' 'thermal expansion on column 79.' Look at how the building was constructed, -what happened to all those other connections? ..

NEW? lol, you never heard of the big bang. Thermal expansion might be the oldest phenomenon in the world, you don't do science, you don't understand thermal expansion.

... READ Ryan's
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

Why? You failed to read Ryan's paper, or you have no ability to do physics to expose it was moronic poppycock.

From the do nothing paper, no goal paper by Ryan.

To that end we should note that NIST had considerable connections to nano-thermites, both before and during the WTC investigation. It is therefore inexplicable why NIST did not consider such materials as an explanation for the fires that burned on 9/11, and long afterward at Ground Zero.

We find Ryan is acting like a moron, making an implication thermite burns for months - making Ryan's paper delusional nonsense only paranoid conspiracy theorist believe out of ignorance.

A no goal paper which make no sense, written by a nut who was fired for spewing woo on 911, you found it. It proves nothing except Ryan can't think rationally on 911 issues, and has skills in using logic. Where is Ryan's Pulitzer Prize for breaking the big "whatever" he exposes in this paper. Is there a "failed logic" award?

You failed to realize steel's strength is destroyed by fire. You don't do E=mgh, and have no idea mgh is the primary source for energy in controlled demolition. Why you can't comprehend the difference between a gravity collapse and a controlled demolition. You should try using physics on your own instead of using someone who has no clue, Ryan, on 911 issues. Why use losers' delusions for evidence to back your claims. Try doing you own work, your own research, please learn physics; take about 5 years off from spreading lies, and get an education which will enable you to see Ryan is a liar, and all your claims are nonsense.

 

[twinstead]

There sure seems to be a lot of information on the internet about this brand new "thermal expansion" thingy.